Mr. Gallie : Will the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely where the
Bill states that the chief constable, or the constabulary, cannot take the
Secretary of State for Scotland into custody if he commits a misdemeanour ?

Mr. Worthington : I do not often alarm the hon. Gentleman this much.
I did not say that ; I said that there must be a three-way balance of power
in the system that we have invented, so that the chief constable has
operational responsibility and--within that responsibility--does not feel
threatened by one of the other powers. What alarms me is that, with fixed-
term contracts and with the Secretary of State determining what is to be in
the report delivered to him, a picture is building up of too much control
going in one direction. We are seeing a Secretary of State who acts as God,
with contempt for both the police service and local authorities. When
debating this issue, we must bear in mind both the fact that local
government is being reorganised, and the Government's plans with regard to
payment for results. Payment for results in itself constitutes a formidable
centralisation of power : it means telling officers how they will be judged
worthy of receiving extra money. I should be astonished if the Secretary of
State said that they should be given extra money for investigating City
fraud, for example ; we are already seeing the Government's attitude in
their relaxed attitude to tax evasion, as opposed to DSS fraud.

The Government must spell out to us why the Bill applies to Scotland. The
Home Secretary has not done so today. In particular, we must hear some
reasoning about what is currently going wrong in terms of Scotland's police
forces. Only last week, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary
produced a periodic report on the forces in Scotland. It included a glowing
report on Strathclyde, which pointed out that in 1993 there had been a 20
per cent. drop in violent crime. It has been claimed that crime has fallen
in England and Wales, but that did not include violent crime. This is in
spite of all that the Government can throw at us in terms of unemployment
and growing inequality.

The finding, however, does not result from any action taken by the Home
Secretary. Today, we have heard reference to the underfunding of the police
forces ; the chief inspector points out that in Scotland the Home Secretary
substantially underfunds the capital requirements of Strathclyde police
force, in comparison with those of similar metropolitan police authorities
elsewhere. However, the report states :

"Despite the effects of the Sheehy Inquiry, morale within the force is high
with a belief that real progress is being made at last on the crime front."

Column 181

Crime is a real worry, in Scotland and
elsewhere ; but the level has remained static and fallen in Scotland, while
it has soared in England. A huge amount of that development has been due to
the partnership between local authorities and the police--a partnership
which the Government will damage with this Bill and the Bill to reorganise
local government.

Although Second Reading is a bit late in the day, the Government must
explain why the Home Secretary knows best. Just why does he, rather than
the local authorities, know how much to spend on the police ? Just what
knowledge does he have ? Ministers have taken no steps to meet local
councillors directly, even after the publication of the Bill ; they
certainly took no such steps before its publication. We are seeing wrong-
headed action by those who want to centralise control even further.

Policing in Britain is one of the institutional miracles of which I think
we should be proudest. Unlike most societies in the world, our police work
on the basis of consent : typically, they do not carry arms, and they
constitute a social service as well as a force. Everything in the Bill will
weaken that trend--that central cultural feature of our policing. Payment
will go not to the social service aspects--not to community policing--but
to other, as yet unspecified, sectors.

We send our police around the world. They are in South Africa and Somalia
now, teaching the doctrine of policing by consent. What I find
extraordinary, and what bothers me, is the weakening of the central
relationship between police, local authorities and local people by this
Home Secretary and his aide de camp the Secretary of State for Scotland--
who has not even shown up today--with no reference to the Scottish people.
They have not even had the common decency to make a case for the Bill. When
will they do so ?

8.47 pm

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire) : I welcome the
opportunity to speak on this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for
Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown)--together with other
Conservative Members--pointed out forcefully, in his customary manner, that
we are, indeed, the party of law and order. The Bill is designed to make it
easier for the law enforcers, both police and magistrates, to clear up
crime, streamline procedures--that seems logical enough to me--and
modernise the organisation and management methods of the police and,
indeed, magistrates courts. Having said that, I am mindful of those who
have a number of reservations about the Bill. I welcome the fact that my
right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken into account
some of the anxieties felt by some of our friends in the other place.
Tonight, therefore, I wish to focus primarily on the reforms of the police-
-on why they are needed, and on why so many of the reforms will benefit
both the police and the population at large. Too often our opponents, in
their desire to oppose for opposition's sake, seem to forget that these
reforms are designed to make it easier to tackle crime--to make it easier
for our constituents to sleep safely in their beds at night or walk the
streets without fear of mugging or sexual assault. Why do those on the
Opposition Benches seem so ready to forget that fact ?

Column 182

The Government have made great strides in
recent years to ensure that the police have a better deal. Not only has the
number of police risen by close to 16,000 since 1979--to a record 129,000--
but police pay has risen by nearly 40 per cent. during that period. The
Conservative party has a record to be proud of in these matters. I very
much welcome the Government's decision to enhance community policing.
Thousands of police have been put back on the beat. The neighbourhood
watch, safer cities and urban crime fund initiatives have been a tremendous
success. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)
said earlier this evening, there are now more than 115,000 neighbourhood
watch schemes, including many in Lichfield and Stone which I have the
honour to represent. The purpose of the reforms is clear : to devolve power
away from the centre--not to centralise--down to the local police
authorities and the local chief constable. It is surprising that Opposition
Members who so often spout the rhetoric of devolution seem to oppose it
when it is introduced. Perhaps even more important, the Bill once enacted
will unshackle the police from huge amounts of paperwork and bureaucracy,
freeing police officers to combat crime.

I have seen it myself at Lichfield police station. I am not the only hon.
Member from Staffordshire--an Opposition Member spoke earlier--who has been
on the beat with the police. I, too, have seen at Lichfield police station
and elsewhere the huge sea of paperwork under which the police could drown.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Inspector Colin Bailey, who is
based at Lichfield police station in Frog lane and who has taken me on a
number of police patrols in the area.

Paperwork can be damaging. As the writer Joe Orton once said, reading
should not be an occupation that we encourage amongst police officers. I
guess that the same goes for writing, too. Only three or four months ago,
the Home Office provided guidelines to the police about how their paperwork
could be reduced. That initiative is to be applauded.

The strengthening of the police authorities is an important step,
particularly as the original proposals have been refined still further. The
deepening of local accountability is a key feature. Police authorities will
have a legal obligation to consult the local community about matters of
importance. Opposition Members who have said that local authorities will
not be accountable to local people are wrong. I argue that the police
authorities will be more accountable as a result of the Bill.

Accountability is enhanced by the duty of the police authority to publish a
local policing plan each year and to explain whether its objectives have
been achieved. It is wrong that police objectives should be shrouded in
secrecy as, to some extent, they have been in the past. This is not a
centralising Bill just because the Home Secretary will have some say in
local police authority affairs. I am sure that if Opposition Members were
ever to get their hands on the police budget of £6 billion, even they
would want to have some say in how the money was spent.

There has been inconsistency on the Opposition Benches. Earlier in the
debate the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said that the
Bill was centralising power, but almost in the same breath he criticised
the fact that the magistrates courts would be

Column 183

given the freedom to provide contracts of
employment. It seems to me that there is some dichotomy in what Opposition
Members believe. A further agreeable aspect of the proposed reform is the
simplification of procedures for the amalgamation of police forces, with
the appropriate checks and balances, so as to avoid wasting resources. I
have seen for myself how neighbouring police forces use different vehicles
and different telecommunications equipment which does not allow them to
communicate with each other properly. There seems to be some concern among
Opposition Members when they speak about a national police force. I
emphasise--it is made absolutely clear--that there are no plans at present
for the amalgamation of two or more police forces. In any event, speaking
as an individual and not on behalf of the party, I do not see what is wrong
with the idea of a national police force. Hon. Members will recall that the
police force was begun by Robert Peel on a local basis.
[Interruption.] I am very pleased that I have finally woken up those
on the Opposition Front Bench. The local police forces were set up to show
their difference from the Army which had formerly undertaken policing. We
have moved a long way since then. [Interruption.] I am honoured that
the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr.
Boateng), compares me with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
I take that as a great compliment.

The amalgamation of police forces can be advantageous because buying in
volume and having integrated systems must make for a major improvement.
Nevertheless, we should take into account the views of the Police
Federation on this point and ensure that there is adequate parliamentary
scrutiny and possibly local inquiries if any local amalgamation is to take
place.

The implementation of some important Sheehy proposals should do much to
ease bureaucracy and streamline management. The abolition of the ranks of
deputy chief constable and chief superintendent will allow chief constables
to engage close to 3,000 extra police constables on the beat, if they so
choose. I, for one, hope that they will choose to use their extra resources
to put extra police on the beat.

Although this is an important and worthy aspect of the Bill, I nevertheless
think that it is important that we recognise that there are those who have
some genuine anxieties about certain parts of the Bill.

Mr. Gallie My hon. Friend is talking about restructuring within the police
force and perhaps disposing of ranks. Given the words of the hon. Member
for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) to the effect that there is no
restructuring of the police force in Scotland, does he realise that that is
contained in the Bill ?

Mr. Fabricant : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
intervention. It displays yet again how Opposition Members are aggressive
but their aggression is based on fallacy. Chief police officers--including
the chief constable of the Staffordshire police, Charles Kelly--are
concerned that the abolition of ranks will enhance operational difficulties
rather than diminish them. The Association of Chief Police Officers may
have a point when it states : "Removal of the Chief Superintendent and
Chief Inspector ranks we now know that the chief inspector rank will not be
removed

Column 184

"could lead to an informal rank structure
which could give rise to the formation of Seniors' and Juniors' within the
remaining ranks. It is feared the loss of clarity could seriously
compromise efficiency in certain situations particularly in instances of
spontaneous public disorder and major disasters which require instant
response and do not allow for pre-planning."

Nevertheless, I have worked in organisations where there were far too many
chiefs and not enough Indians, and I remain to be convinced by the
arguments presented by the Association of Chief Police Officers, especially
now that the Home Secretary has made this major and important concession.

Junior ranks, too, are concerned about the new disciplinary procedure. The
Police Federation made the valid point, which has been mentioned by hon.
Members of all parties, that safeguards are needed in relation to
disciplinary procedures. It correctly said that police officers are in a
"monopoly employment situation"--if they are dismissed, they lose the right
to practise their profession. I therefore fully accept that it is important
that, when police officers are accused of alleged misdemeanours, there are
high procedural standards. They should include the right to cross-examine
witnesses and have legal representation. The Police Federation states :

"Policing in the United Kingdom is normally conducted by officers acting
alone and if the burden of proof and the procedural standards required to
prove disciplinary allegations are reduced to that of ordinary employment
law, police officers will be reluctant to act knowing that a complaint,
perhaps corroborated by some other ill-disposed person, could quite easily
lead to a loss of livelihood."

That point has also been taken on board, thus proving the flexibility of
the Home Office and its ability to listen.

The vast majority of our police offer a first-rate and excellent service
and do not deserve to have the weight of the law unfairly balanced against
them, in the form of disciplinary procedures. My near neighbour, the hon.
Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), made great play of clause
23, which deals with the acceptance of gifts and loans. He spoke at great
length about companies such as McDonald's possibly sponsoring police cars
and so on. SPACE--the Staffordshire Police Activity and Community
Enterprise--is an excellent initiative introduced by the Staffordshire
police. It helps to look after children during the summer recess. I would
argue that it could well do with sponsorship, which would enable resources
to be put back into policing on the streets. I have travelled and lived all
over the world, but I believe that our police force is second to none. It
carries out its duties admirably. In true Peelite spirit, the Bill will do
much to modernise the force and equip it for the 21st century. As with any
major reform, there are bound to be anxieties but, as he has shown with his
alterations to the original Bill, I am sure that the Home Secretary will
take any apprehensions on board. We would do well to remember Gilbert and
Sullivan's warning :

"When constabulary duty's to be done, A policeman's lot is not a happy
one".

That is sometimes the case even in Staffordshire.

9.1 pm

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South) : I now know why this is called
Second Reading. I thought that I had heard that speech before and then I
realised that it resembled J.

Column 185

Arthur Rank's "Look at Life" series from the
1960s--both offered an idealised version of what was happening in the
world.

I am deeply offended by the hon. Members who try to make political capital
out of any divisions within the Labour party or of our supposedly being
anti-police. Having watched at first hand the party that is supposed to be
the party of defence and of law and order, I suggest that we should not be
regarded with such disrespect. I say that because the police are in a
critical period : the police, private security, the non-Home Department
police forces, the military and all the organisations that have a
responsibility for policing and security are uncertain about their future.

In the past few years, we have had a royal commission, a White Paper,
nonsensical speeches at party conferences and legislation, but I do not
believe that the police are any nearer being able to resolve the problems
that they need to resolve in order to tackle crime effectively. The Bill
will not take them any further down that road. The Home Office and the
Government need to demonstrate a degree of imagination in defining policing
in the next five or six years, and in defining the relationship between the
police and the private sector. The most important activity undertaken by
the Home Office has nothing to do with the Bill. I should have liked the
Bill to be postponed until the internal inquiry into core responsibilities
has been published because that will determine the nature of policing in
the years ahead, the size and functions of the police force, and what
functions will be handed to or usurped by the private sector. Some serious
analysis is required but the Bill does not provide it. We have heard some
remarkable examples of Toryspeak. The climbdown in the House of Lords is
described as a great piece of statesmanship, in the same way as I suppose a
full-blooded and fast retreat could be described as a tactical regrouping.

The other great piece of Toryspeak is, "We are the party of law and order."
The Tories need not look far in their own constituencies to find out about
the perception of crime, and regrettably the reality of crime is coming
closer and closer to the perception. People are extremely anxious, and if
the Bill is to reassure them, the Government will have to re-examine it
much more closely.

There may be a return to basics, but regrettably we are returning almost to
the basics of the pre-1830s, before the modern police force and modern
municipal government were established. As has already been said, in those
days policing was the responsibility not of the police force but of the
watches or of the military. Otherwise there was self-protection. Then the
police and municipal government were established, and our system for 140
years or so has rested on them. Now we are reverting to a position in which
the private sector will have a greater role than the official sector of
policing. I am sorry to bore the Minister further on that subject, but if
the private sector is to be expanded, as has happened exponentially over
the past 10 years, the minimum that the Government must do is to bring it
within the framework of regulation.

The Bill, far from being a decentralising measure, is in some ways a piece
of centralising legislation. It is not quite as bad as it was before it
went to the House of Lords--I

Column 186

congratulate the other place on having done
a good job on it--and we should bear that fact in mind. But the Bill is
still centralising. I do not like the idea of force amalgamations, or of
the reform of the police boards ; it will still be possible to pack a
committee. I do not like the idea of what will happen to the town that I
represent. Until 20 years ago it had a close and complete relationship with
the police force and with the watch committee--in other words, with the
"controlling element". Now we are not certain that we shall have even one
member on the new police authority. I believe that in Manchester there will
be more members available than there will be places, so we are going in the
reverse direction, away from local accountability. That is greatly to be
regretted. I should like to speak at greater length, but time does not
permit. The Government have got it wrong. Some of the deficiencies in the
Bill have been partially remedied, and I hope that in Committee the
Government do not take the opportunity to reinsert some of the more
obnoxious features that have received universal criticism. I can think of
few Bills, even among those introduced by the Government, that have
attracted so much criticism. I also have considerable criticisms of the
sections dealing with magistrates courts, on which we have all been
lobbied.

We have heard much about the Government consisting of "listening
Ministers". I have recently been reading about the rise of Chartism, and
one of its demands--annually elected Parliaments--has still not been
achieved. However, 120 years later we have annually appointed Home
Secretaries. Perhaps some degree of stability could be introduced if the
people who make the initial decisions were around to try to implement them.

I hope that the Committee will do a good job of work, and that the Act that
emerges from the House will strengthen the law. I repeat my request that
the people in the Home Office should have a little vision, and should look
further than the end of their noses, and further than what might happen
next week or next month. I ask them to look at the future shape of policing
and security. That is imperative, and I hope that the Home Office will meet
the challenge.

9.8 pm

Sir Roger Moate (Faversham) : May I concentrate for a few moments on
the part of the Bill that deals with the reorganisation of the
administration of Her Majesty's magistrates courts ? While I thank my hon.
Friend the Minister and the Lord Chancellor for the courteous way in which
they have received representations from me and others, they will not be
surprised to know that I view that part of the Bill with something less
than enthusiasm.

I must make it clear that, if there was evidence of great inefficiency in
the system, or evidence of something fundamentally wrong, or evidence of
wastage, I would certainly support fundamental reform of the magistrates
court system. However, I do not believe that there is any such evidence at
all. I must put on record the fact that this otherwise excellent Bill would
be no worse, and would probably be much better, if the whole section on
magistrates courts were to disappear altogether. It does not add very much
to the sum total of the administration of justice.

Of course, one is not saying that there is not some inefficiency and some
wastage. Even allowing for the

Column 187

possibility of that, one must balance any
such costs against the enormous saving that our society makes from the
remarkable system of voluntary justice that we enjoy in this country.

It is a remarkable system in which so many thousands of people give service
of the highest order freely and generously and handle--I forget the exact
figures--90 or 95 per cent. of cases brought before our courts. Against
minor inefficiencies, one must balance those enormous advantages to our
society of the present voluntary system. When we seek to impose new
criteria, cash limits, performance indicators, amalgamation and business
plans, let us be careful that we are not discouraging those who have given-
-and we hope will give in future--service of that high order.

What is clear to me, and what motivates my criticism, is that the closure
of local magistrates courts in many towns and rural areas--it has certainly
happened in Kent, and is likely to continue throughout the country--
undermines what I believe to be, and what most people perceive as, truly
local justice. It leads to the undermining of the magistracy. I am not
saying that there is a hidden agenda for the closure of courts. It is a
very open agenda, certainly in Kent, where plans have become widely known
and a number of courts are lined up for closure, and I have no doubt that
what is applying in Kent is likely to apply throughout the length and
breadth of the country. If there should be any doubt, we were informed in a
note from the Justices' Clerks Society that, in the briefing paper prepared
by the Lord Chancellor's Department for the Select Committee, the
suggestion was made that the Lord Chancellor could, under clause 66,

" specify a minimum level of courtroom use'".

The clerks go on to say :

"This could lead to the widespread closure of local courts and courts
offices. One of the effects of smaller towns losing their magistrates
courts will be, particularly in rural areas, a loss of the availability of
fair justice to defendants who may have difficulty reaching a distant
court. Witnesses also will be deterred from attending".

What that means in plain English is the closure of smaller courthouses, not
only through the effects of the Bill, but through the effects of the Bill
coupled with the cash limits that the Lord Chancellor's Department has
already been applying. If one combines those supposedly more efficient and
businesslike structures with cash limits, the threat to the smaller
courthouses arises.

It is not only that the Bill will create new chief executives--the term
applied to justices' chief clerks--of newly amalgamated committees that
alarms me. Those chief executives can, and I hope will, be made fully
answerable to the magistrates courts committees in their areas. What is
alarming is that those committees will in practice--perhaps not in theory--
be impotent in the face of a more professional chief executive, whose
principal job is to administer the cash, which is provided under cash
limits by the Government in conformity with performance indicators laid
down by the Government.

Mr. John M. Taylor : I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long and
strongly held views on those matters, but is it not trespassing slightly
into an area which would demean our magistrates to suggest that they would
be powerless in the face of a clerk ? I hold a much higher opinion of
magistrates than that.

Sir Roger Moate : We all have a high opinion of magistrates, but
this is a very serious point, to which I hope

Column 188

we shall return in Committee and on Report.
I believe that I am right and that my hon. Friend is wrong. We have been
over this ground before.

The difficulty is that, as a result of clerk and cash limits, the
magistrates, however powerful and determined, will face the closure of some
smaller courts. This is not hypothetical ; it has already happened in my
county, and I believe that it is likely to continue. I am not saying that
the problem is insoluble ; I am making the point that we shall have to face
up to it. The result of the legislation will be the closure, over the
years, of many courthouses throughout the country.

Court closures often take place one at a time. When I want to object to a
closure in my constituency, other people are not worried about closures in
their areas. As the process is piecemeal, the House never gets to grips
with what is a very significant change in society. Indeed, Members of
Parliament often do not have the right to object as cases do not even reach
the Lord Chancellor.

This is a very serious problem. A courthouse in Faversham that had been
going for many hundreds of years--it housed one of the oldest benches in
the country : a small and very efficient and cost-effective court--was
closed down. We could not object, as Kent county council--the local
authority paying 20 per cent. of its costs--did not object.

This is something for which I do not forgive the county council. Had the
matter gone to the Minister, he might have reversed the decision. In my
view, this will happen increasingly as we move into the whole new era of
cash limits based on certain very rigid criteria, some of which I still
think are rather peculiar, and the new structure.

What will happen under local government reorganisation ? Who will have the
right to object to a closure ? At present, we do not know. Who will then
contribute the balance of the costs of the magistrates courts ? Again, we
do not know. Would it not be sensible to wait for local government
reorganisation before embarking on this restructuring of the magistrates
courts committees ?

We ought to require simply that every magistrates court closure is
automatically referred to the Lord Chancellor. That would not be a very
great change. I hope that there will not be many such proposals, and that
we shall learn to resist those that are made. I should like to have it
confirmed, preferably in the legislation, that there will not be high
pressure for amalgamations. I cannot see great reason for amalgamation on
the scale that is envisaged, resulting in a drop from 100 magistrates
courts committees to 50 or 60.

Most important of all, as we embark on this new era, is that we should get
rid of the formula--which I think has been suspended--that imposes on
magistrates courts committees throughout the country certain performance
requirements that do not make sense. It does not make sense for central
Government to say, "This is the total available cash, and we shall
reallocate it county by county, taking from some areas and giving to others
where there is probably no need or no crying need, and disregarding history
and the number of small towns, as well as the number of small local
courts."

We have been in danger of centralising. No doubt the motive was good : the
aim was to secure efficient justice and financial savings. However, I
believe that we got it wrong. Thus, I hope that, in Committee and on
Report, we shall have a chance of putting the situation right. I hope

Column 189

that my hon. Friend will not resist those
opportunities, but will respond to the many representations that he has
received from hon. Members and from people outside.

9.18 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : This unappealing and unacceptable
Bill was introduced by the Home Secretary in his customary way--cynicism,
complacency and calculation in large and equal measure. There was cynicism
in the rationale which he applied in justification of the measure. There
was complacency in the face of its manifest failure to deal with real
concerns about crime and the administration of justice. There was
calculation because at the heart of all that the right hon. and learned
Gentleman does is not the interests of justice, not the proper and real
concerns that need to be addressed about crime, but a cynical calculation
of his political future. Those of us who listened to all the speeches
during the debate will have noted that the most striking feature was that
only two Conservative Members could be found to give unequivocal support to
the Bill. I refer to the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr.
Clifton-Brown) and for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). That says that
all that needs to be said about the merits of the Bill.

Mr. David Atkinson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way ?

Mr. Boateng : No.

All that the Government could dredge up was, as I have said, the hon.
Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and for

Mid-Staffordshire.

Mr. Atkinson rose

Mr. Boateng : There is another volunteer for the order of the brown
nose.

Mr. Fabricant : You can talk.

Mr. Boateng : I am the last to say anything in response to the
barracking about that order, but at least I know the origins of my nose.

I listened to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It was a
memorable speech in its way, but even in that there was a moment of concern
or doubt--I am glad that he is now in his place--about the proposals for
the special role of the lords lieutenant. Of all the things to find wrong
with this measure and of all the agonies to be shared with the House, the
hon. Gentleman was able to find one concern, which was the slight
withdrawal of the importance and status of the role of lords lieutenant.

Such is the world in which some Conservative Members live. It is one far
removed from reality, from the real concerns about crime and crime
prevention. There are real concerns about the deplorable morale in
magistrates courts and in the administration of justice generally.

Some important points were made by the hon. Members for Chislehurst (Mr.
Sims), for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), for
Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Faversham (Sir R. Moate). There
did not seem to be an unequivocal welcome from those hon. Members for the
Bill. There seemed to be some concern.

Column 190

I fear for the hon. Member for Faversham,
who made an important and serious speech. He expressed the desire that
certain matters would be raised in Committee. I saw the expression on the
faces of the silent ones who sit on the Treasury Bench. Expressions of
concern may well be made in Committee, but they will not, I fear, be made
by the hon. Member for Faversham. The reality is

Sir Roger Moate : I referred to consideration on Report. I have no
particular ambition to serve in Committee.

Mr. Boateng : The hon. Member has been a Member of this place for a
long time--for much longer than I--and he clearly knows the way it works.

The Home Secretary was only too anxious to share with us the anticipation
of the contribution of the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's
Department. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was only too anxious to
palm off on him the difficult issues and the real concerns

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) : The poisoned chalice.

Mr. Boateng : Indeed. The Parliamentary Secretary will drink deep of
that draught. He has been anticipating the drop for some time. That is
surprising, bearing in mind his experience and position. He knows that
there is widespread concern throughout the country and on both sides of the
House about the provisions on reorganising magistrates courts. That is not
surprising, given the measures in the Bill.

The Bill is a battered edifice. It was knocked about quite a bit in the
course of its introduction in the House of Lords. The Home Secretary and
his noble and learned Friend may rue the day that the measure was
introduced there, because the robustness of mind in the other place has
long since been quelled on the Conservative Benches. The octogenarian
tendency in the other place shows remarkable signs of life, and great
spirit. We owe Members of the House of Lords a debt of gratitude, and we do
not intend to let them down. The Bill was assaulted on both sides of the
House. Although some of its edges were knocked off, and it was made a
little smoother in parts, it remains an obstacle to the proper
administration of justice, which is why we shall oppose it.

The Bill represents, in so obvious a form, the twin pinnacles of Toryism,
on this and many other issues. The first pinnacle is the Tories' adulation
of market forces and belief that the rules and disciplines of the market
should be applied wherever possible. That is their approach to all issues.
The second pinnacle is their obsession with centralisation, and loathing of
local administration.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Quite right, too.

Mr. Boateng : The hon. Lady has only just manifested herself in the
Chamber. Her comment accords neither with what Ministers have said in this
debate so far nor with the lip service which the Home Secretary has paid to
the notion of local accountability. I expect that the Parliamentary
Secretary will rise to his feet and say how much the Lord Chancellor
supports the input of local magistrates courts committees. The reality,
however, is different.

Let us see what is left now that the other place has had a go at this
edifice. The power to remove directions to a

Column 191

magistrates courts committee remains, as
does the power to remove the chairman and members of a magistrates courts
committee and replace them with appointees.

We are discussing not just the two co-opted persons--the Lord Chancellor's
placepersons--who will have all the necessary qualifications required to be
the placepersons of any Minister in this House : they will be paid-up
members of the Tory party, preferably the spouse of a Conservative Member.
There will doubtless be plenty of willing nominees for that post.

We are discussing not just the power to co-opt but the power, in certain
circumstances, to replace the magistrates courts committees entirely by
people who are not even justices of the peace. That is an incredible power,
when one considers its constitutional implications.

The Bill still contains the power not to approve candidates for the post of
justices' chief executive and justices' clerk. Then there are the powers of
the inspectorate, and the indirect monitoring of justices' clerks by the
chief executive. All those aspects remain intact, despite the amendments in
another place, which were eventually accepted--although initially opposed--
by the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Mackinlay : What my hon. Friend describes must be seen against a
backdrop of the growing concern, in this House and especially in another
place, about the power of the Lord Chancellor and his office. Is there not
widespread concern about the politicisation of his duties in administering
justice, and is there not a case for a root-and-branch review of his roles,
in respect both of the magistracy and of the administration of justice
generally ? Is my hon. Friend aware that their Lordships are holding a
debate on that very point tomorrow evening ?

Mr. Boateng : My hon. Friend has tabled a number of important
questions in the House, and I know that the Lord Chancellor has met him to
discuss his concern about the latter's role in relation to the late
president of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, and the real concerns among
the judiciary and the public alike about the fact that the Lord Chancellor
is being given powers that lie outside his proper judicial functions.

It will therefore not be good enough if the Parliamentary Secretary
dismisses as unworthy of consideration the idea that the Lord Chancellor
might be tempted to misuse the considerable powers that this Bill will give
him. Moreover, there are real anxieties about the extent to which the
Treasury has its dead hand on the administration of justice. Increasingly,
the Lord Chancellor is becoming the agent of the Treasury in matters of
justice.

These are not fanciful notions ; they are a real reflection of the worries
expressed by Lord Ackner, a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, who has
referred to the role of the Treasury and how it works against the interests
of justice. He has also talked of the importance of the Lord Chancellor
being a bulwark against this encroaching tendency.

In the House of Commons, we suffer from the fact that we do not have the
Lord Chancellor before us : we have only his Parliamentary Secretary. Fond
though we are of him, the Lord Chancellor's valet is no substitute for his
own presence. [Hon. Members :-- "His batman."] I did not use that
word, because it would imply that there was a Robin--and he does not even
have that. He does not even have someone to sit behind him